Monsters that mark: A pain for DMs

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

Some of the double-standard logic in this edition tweeks me out.

"1-2-1 diagonals may be realistic, but they are too complicated, so we're simplifying! Ease of play over realism! But here's Marks, which force you to remember subjective monster-PC relationships that might change every round! And also, we didn't think it was very realistic to have halflings be so tiny, so now they're 3/4lings, because, you know, realism is important?"

Heh, I do have to kinda agree with this...

If they ARE a problem, I might just make it some sort of constant effect: the last person you attacked takes a -2 penalty to attack anyone else until it's next turn. I think that's true to the intent of them without keeping some of the complications.

Um... isn't that what the Marks from monsters already do?

As someone else mentioned, I think that monster marking would work best as a way to "force" a player to attack a particular type of monster, rather than a specific monster... so if you are marked by a Kobold Dragonshield out of a group of 4... you get a penalty to your attack to target any other monster that might be in the group... but not those 4 Kobold Dragonshields.

 

[DM_Blake]

On a slightly different topic, do the PCs automatically KNOW who has marked them in combat immeditely? I ask as the only way "marking" makes sense is if one of the monsters is concentrating on restricting the mobility and distracting the PC from attacking anyone else. So how would the PC know this until he tries to attack someone else?

I just ask because marking becomes much more effective (at least for one round) if the PC doesn't automatically know he has been marked, because then he is much more likely to attack the "wrong" monster and suffer the -2 penalty. I guess the same might be true for monsters (maybe they have to pass a spot test to know).

I don't know all the "fluff" behind marking.

But, given that marking is something a fighter type (i.e. not a mage) does to an enemy, I find it hard to assume the fluff describes it as some kind of telepathic or magical effect.

Given that, I expect the guy doing the marking is deliberately getting in the way, distracting, taunting, and jabbing at the target he marked - doing everything he can to hinder and harrass the guy he marked to force that guy to attack him, or suffer penalties if he doesn't.

That said, I imagine the guy who is being marked is very much aware of who is getting in his way, distracting, taunting, and jabbing at him.

I don't know if that's exactly how it works, but that's how I'm seeing it in my mind's eye.

 

[Xorn]

I've run five fan playtest/demos now, and I haven't had any notable problems with marks. I will state that the most complicated part of running a 4E combat has been tracking creature marks--I just didn't find it to be of enough consequence to call it annoying.

When I ran my face-to-face game, the party was facing hobgoblins (2 soldiers, 1 archer, 1 warcaster) and my steno-pad looked like this on one round:

Kathra: init#, HP#, A (marked by A), LoF (lance of faith)
Corrin: init#, HP#, B (marked by B), bolster (bolstering strike)
Skamos: init#, HP#, AP (action point used)
Erais: init#, HP#, 1x WoH (word of healing used once)

Soldier A: init#, HP#, kathra (marked by fighter)
Soldier B: init#, HP#, corrin (marked by paladin)
Archer: init #, HP#
Warcaster: init#, HP#, pulse, lance (pulse & lance recharging)

This is remarkably similar to what my stenopad looks like when running 3.5 face-to-face, only no durations.

When running over a VTT, it was even simpler, as I just put the letter of the soldier that was marking the character next to them in my "character status" window. But since tracking stuff in a VTT is so much simpler, I didn't think that was a fair comparison. Anyway, my point is that yes, marking seems like the least "elegant" of the rules, but I don't find it warranting the term "annoying" or "concerning", in my case.

I also think it's a good point that because it's "clunky" marking for creatures might actually mean, "-2 to attack rolls that don't include a target of this type" as that is performing the function of marking--to penalize attacks not made on the meatshields.

 

[DM_Blake]

As a DM I would make it so that my monster with the HIGHEST hps is always doing the marking to try to spread damage from the PCs. The PCs on the other hand will likely want to cocentrate their power to eliminate numbers fast. If the fighter is having a hard time hitting he may specifically ask to attack the one that marked him, which as a DM you always have as the one with the highest HPS at the beginning of the round. The whole point to 4e is that your monsters will fight with tactics.

Yep, already thought of this.

But I have also thought of the possibility that some monsters are just not smart enough to utilize marking to the greatest tactical advantage.

Take skeletons.

To start with, a skeleton is just a decayed corpse laying on the ground. It not only cannot mark anything, it can't even move around. Then along comes a necromancer who animates the skeleton and gives it magical power to move around and fight things, but doesn't give it intelligence. Part of the magical power this necromancer gives to his skeletons is the ability to protect the necromancer my marking stuff. But the skeleton can't make tactical decisions, so it markes whoever it is fighting. The necromancer intends to swarm any party of heroes invading his lair with an army of skeletons, so that every hero is marked every round, maximizing the necromancer's chance to survive.

Or take kobolds:
Kobolds win battles by swarming their opponents, shifting about and being hard to hit while being very mobile and getting into positions to gain combat advantage and overwhelming the weakest party members with sheer numbers. But that's about all they know. Any kobold with the ability to mark an opponent will be just smart enough to use that marking ability to facilitate those battle tactics. He will mark a nearby foe, preferably the weakest looking one (e.g. mage before rogue before fighter, melee types before ranged types), hoping that guy will move toward him and into position to be swarmed by the all the kobold's buddies.

Or take Ogres:
Ogres like to smash things. They take pride in smashing things. Smashing big scary things is more of an accomplishment than smashing little squishy things. It might be a good idea to mark the sneaky ranger who is off to the side sniping at the chieftain or his ogre mage shamans, but it's not very manly (or, uh, ogrely), so the ogres will probably be marking the fighter, barbarian, paladin instead. Not a tactically wise decsion, but hey, we're talking ogres here.

Which all fits in with your last line:

If you as a DM use tactics that make sense to yourself, you will have no trouble remembering.

Given my adjustment to this statement, recognizing that "what makes sense to yourself" varies from fight to fight based on the intelligence, fighting style, and tactical acumen of the monsters at hand, I totally agree.

 

[Pbartender]

Then along comes a necromancer who animates the skeleton and gives it magical power to move around and fight things, but doesn't give it intelligence.

To pick a nit... Who says?

Str 15 Dex 17 Wis 14 Con 13 Int 3 Cha 3

Apparently, the skeletons have a rudimentary intelligence... Just enough to obey commands in the same way a well-trained animal might, and fight in a reasonably efficient manner.

Perhaps the "fluff" of a mark is simply that in some cases the attacker is so aggressive that it's harder to devote your attention elsewhere when retaliating. That would explain marks from less intelligent monsters... they're not necessarily using any tactics or tricks in influence the target, but they're just so very tenaciously single-minded in their attacks that its difficult to ignore them.

 

[arscott]

I don't really think your examples hold up. Remember, soldier refers to a specific battlefield role. A Tough Melee combatant that fights smart--and presumably has a bit of the defender's stickiness (hence the marks).

The skeletons aren't soldiers. They're minions. They're not going to have any marking abilities, because that's not part of their role. On the other hand, the necromancer is a leader and a mastermind. He's probably got all sorts of nifty powers that let him use his undead minions as meat shields.

The Ogres aren't solders, they're brutes. They just smash things hard, and survive because they've got a bunch of hit points. No marking here.

You describe the kobolds above as being mobile, and adept and maneuvering into a position to strike weaker targets. But guess what a Kobold's mark actually does: It maneuvers him into position to strike a marked target. This isn't a mark designed to keep the heavy hitters on the Dragonshield--It's a mark that prevents the squishies from running away.

 

[JohnSnow]

Apparently, the skeletons have a rudimentary intelligence... Just enough to obey commands in the same way a well-trained animal might, and fight in a reasonably efficient manner.

Perhaps the "fluff" of a mark is simply that in some cases the attacker is so aggressive that it's harder to devote your attention elsewhere when retaliating. That would explain marks from less intelligent monsters... they're not necessarily using any tactics or tricks in influence the target, but they're just so very tenaciously single-minded in their attacks that its difficult to ignore them.

To expand on this, I don't have any difficulty with marking, either from a conceptual in-game viewpoint, or, as far as I can tell, from a tracking standpoint.

A creature that "marks" you is basically committing to attacking you. Put another way, it's keeping an eye on you. That skeleton warrior has decided to focus on one target, in its simple-minded way. You can't simply ignore it, because it will harrass you, making it difficult for you to attack another target. In other words, the creature staring intently at you and poking its weapon in your direction is the one "marking" you. That takes care of how you describe it to the players and how their character's perceive it.

From a tracking standpoint, it's simple: the last creature capable of marking that attacked you leaves you "marked" until the next turn. I can see a couple soldiers (or defenders) trading off who they "mark" as a tactical game to play with their opponents.

Yes, it makes for a tactical exchange. However, it's really no more complicated than running a low-level caster. Consider this somewhat simplistic exchange, involving a fighter and a paladin vs. two hobgoblin soliders:

Fighter: "I attack the hobgoblin on the left (A), marking him."
Paladin: "I attack the hobgoblin on the right (B), marking him."
DM: "Hobgoblin A notices the fighter and attacks. He counter-marks you. A battle is joined. Hobgoblin B counter-attacks the paladin...and you're also marked."
(a round or two later, the fight is still going...)
Fighter: "Time to change tactics....I'm shift, suck up the penalty and attack B instead. He's now marked..."
Paladin: "Sweet...I shift and mark A..."

Obviously, with two guys, this is pointless...but if you involve a striker, it could get interesting...

Quite honestly, I just don't see what's so complicated. *shrug*

Maybe it's harder in play. Guess I'll find out in June.

 

[AllisterH]

Personally, if I was only using soldiers, I wouldn't bother with the marks AT ALL. As another poster mentioned, the mechanic is a way to try and get the hardies to protect the squishies but if you have no squishies, why bother using it at all?

As for the scenarios (zombies, soldiers, skeletons), wouldn't all those be minions once you get into the "more than 1 per player/horde of undead" type numbers?

 

[Pbartender]

Personally, if I was only using soldiers, I wouldn't bother with the marks AT ALL. As another poster mentioned, the mechanic is a way to try and get the hardies to protect the squishies but if you have no squishies, why bother using it at all?

Because a -2 penalty is still a -2 penalty... That is to say, you can use the multiple soldiers to mark as many different PCs as possible, making it easier to keep the PCs scattered and more difficult for the PCs to concentrate their firepower on any single opponent without taking a -2 penalty to attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

I could probably come up with 3 or 4 other ways to make it easy to remember.

The point is that you shouldn't have to.

4E is supposed to be smoother and easier to run.


And, it's not just marks that require additional bookkeeping. In the case of marks, it's who is marked by who and what does this mark do.

But, there are other conditions: bloodied, combat advantage. In 3E, there is no bloodied. It's additional bookkeeping. In 3E, there are several different types of combat advantage, but many of them like flank or prone are obvious if one uses miniatures. Combat advantage in 4E is not necessarily obvious like that (but it does have the advantage of being the same bonus each time).

There are also the advantages of powers which are similar levels of bookkeeping. In 3E, spell effects tended to last an entire combat. It was only necessarily to know that Bless was cast, not so much when it would expire (there were some 1 round per level exceptions, but even those disappeared once PCs got to 7th level or so).

In 4E, most effects last for a turn. So although it is not especially difficult to keep track of it, it is just another bookkeeping layer of "Am I still getting the +2 advantage from the Cleric, or was that last round?".

4E really looks like it will play well if people create the equivalent of MtG cards and hand them out to various players mid-game. Half RPG, half card game.